- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 02:32:50 +0200
- To: Craig Northway <craign@cisra.canon.com.au>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
* Craig Northway wrote: >>This change alone does not satisfy me, the draft would then contradict >>the definition of the element which states that discarding an element >>is equivalent to calling removeChild() which would no longer be true as >>user agents are not prohibed from re-inserting nodes removed via that >>method when seeking. > >Excuse me? They are explicitly prohibited from re-inserting nodes. This >method now works exactly like calling removeChild/Node() from a script. My original comment was that there does not seem to be a definition of "seeking backwards" in the draft yet the draft assumes specific requirements for "seeking backwards". The same is true for the draft plus the proposed change. If "seeking backwards" is clearly defined in the draft it should be easy to comply with my original request to link to that definition from the discard element definition; and if there is no such definition, removeChild() is simply not defined to have the impact on "seeking backwards" you describe. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Saturday, 30 April 2005 00:32:21 UTC